Whats the best tank for a "Deliberate" attack ?

yer dealing with Allied tanks... 3 man turret crews... stunted rate of fire and lack of communication to share targets if aqcuired.. Im totally in support of the previous post. If early allied tanks had been meant to pursue an offensive role they woulda had large calibre HE like the Char... albeit the char was a hair under unless since the driver had to aim an fire the 75 at the same time he was driving and the commander had to load, unjam it etc...
cus there was no breech acess for the driver.

key is the germans anticipated there would be infantry up front with armored elements and brought up HE to support em. Allied tanks were meant to operate independtly of infantry in the case of the cruisers or in conjunction as in the case of the infantry tanks.

Further allied tanks had no role in defense as the allies were ARTILLERY oriented and totally relied on the defensive power of AT guns...

only slight problem was... although their defensive policy against armor was totally dependent on AT Guns... the nimnuts didnt build any in nearly sufficient numbers to suit their own doctrine.

I believe they wanted 1 every 400 yards of front and could barely muster 1 every 800 yards..

when ya look at the fact that ya can stack about 200 or so tanks in the same space... no matter how fast that gun shoots the tanks are goin thru.
with the greater range against soft targets with thte 75 he of the pz 4.. the germans could take out enemy at guns before they even got into effective range... further decreasing the allied defensive ability. another key point is the germans were trained to counterrrack immediately and without preperation on defense. the allies had no set policy as regards counterrattacks... they werent "methodical"... so they didnt design a medium with solid firepower , decent armor and good speed like the pz3.

they went heavy inf or light cruiser.

 

Mark III Churchills went into action in Tunisia with HE ammo for their 6-pdrs and the Cs Marks which had a 95 mm gun. While the Na75 and Mark VII (when they arrive in Italy) with their 75 mm guns had better HE capability, 6-pdr HE was still used up until the war's end.

 

Re: Whats the best tank for a "Deliberate" attack

heres my origional post..

a mid 42 Churchill III or a "rarity" Churchill CS or even a 1943 Mk VIII that fought 3 years after the fall of france dont apply.


Im referring to the French and british pre-war mind set and how it affected tank design/production and deployment.


within those lines and assuming the french and british were correct in their assumption that the "methodical" attack method was correct and the "blitzkrieg" concept was not and would meet its death on a wall of AT guns...

WHICH TANKS AS EXISTED IN 1939-1940 WOULD BE MOST WELL SUITED FOR THE INFANTRY SUPPORT ROLE WITHIN THE "METHODICAL" BATTLE FRAMEWORK.

TANKS BUILT AFTER THE FALL OF FRANCE DONT QUALIFY.

 

After World War I and prior to World War II - there was no solid base of knowledge or experience with which to formulate a policy regarding armored warfare.

Each nation was left alone to develop their own theories.

Once a nation created a theory, tank design was based solely on that theory alone.

Assum9ing a theory to be correct and assuming that the Battle for france hadnt begun yet. as a british or french officer organising and planning a methodical attack based on current national policy and the arms available. which vehicle would you choose ?

Which generals were solid proponents of methodical attack ?
How did they fare during the war and name examples fought later using the methodical attack principle.